Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral):- This appeal is directed against the JUDGMENT of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehra, District Kangra, in Criminal Case No. 57-II/96 dated 4.7.2001, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. PW-4 complainant Nirmala Devi lodged a complaint that on 31st May, 1995 when she was working in a cow-shed then the accused persons started erecting a boundary fence by putting bushes on the land. She objected to the same. On this the accused persons got very angry and accused Raghubir Singh gave her a blow with a “Drati” and accused Amrit Lal gave her kick and fist blows. She suffered a cut injury on the right hand. On the basis of this complaint, F.I.R. was lodged. The police investigated the matter and after investigation the challan was filed in Court. The accused were summoned. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial the accused have been acquitted. Hence the present appeal.

2. PW-4 appeared in the witness box and supported the version given by her in the complaint. Her version is that the land on which the fence was being raised by the accused had been purchased by her from her brother-in-law. She admitted that some civil litigation was pending in respect of the same land. According to her, her father PW-6 Finu Ram, the Sarpanch and other relatives reached the spot. However, she does not clearly state as to when these persons reached the spot.

2. PW-6 Finu Ram, father of the complainant, is the only eye witness examined by the prosecution. According to his version, he was told by the mother-in-law of the complainant that there is some fight going on and when he reached the cow-shed he saw the accused No.1 giving a blow of Daraty and accused No.2 giving kick and fist blows to his daughter. His version is, however, quite contrary to that of the complainant. According to him, the accused were uprooting a fence when this occurrence took place. The case of the complainant is that the accused were unauthorisedly erecting a fence on her land and she objected to the same.

3. It is also doubtful whether PW-6 reached the spot before the occurrence took place. As per the version of the complainant, as soon as she raised objections to the accused erecting the offence, they attacked her. PW-6 states that he was told by mother-in-law of the complainant that a fight was taking place. It is, therefore, apparent that this fight had already taken place by the time this witness reached the spot.

4. Even if, it is accepted that this witness saw the incident, from the evidence of the complainant itself it is apparent that this witness reached the spot alongwith the Sarpanch and some other relatives. There is no explanation on behalf of the prosecution as to why the Sarpanch, if not the other relatives, was not associated with the investigation nor examined in the Court.

5. There is another contradiction in the case. According to the complainant, the land had been purchased by her from her brother-in-law prior to the incident taking place. However, her father has stated that this land was purchased by the husband of the complainant after the occurrence had taken place.

6. Even the medical evidence does not corroborate the statement of the complainant. The complainant has only suffered one superficial cut injury on the middle finger of her right hand and there is no other injury on her person. If she had been beaten by two fully grown male persons as alleged by her she would have suffered at least some other simple injuries. The cut injury is superficial and could be self inflicted and could have been even take place when two sides were fighting over the erection of the bushy fence.

7. Keeping in view the contradictions in the statements of PW-4 and PW-6, the prior litigation between the parties, the fact that the medical evidence does not corroborate the version of the complainant, the learne